As concerns on the implementation of IPDS reach a crescendo, FIRE gives a snapshot of where the Service is, and in a special ‘troubleshooting’ feature, provides a suite of possible solutions.
The trouble with IPDS is this:
• There is no common standard for development
• There is little in the way of effective audit of fire and rescue services’ responsibility to train, develop and assesses its staff
• There is a decrease in the amount and quality of training at station level
• There is not the right buy-in from firefighters or existing managers seeking promotion
• The system is an incomplete concept lacking suitability within the contemporary working environment
• There is no joint ownership.
These were a few of the headline concerns raised by our contributors to this month’s special focus on IPDS (see pg 28-34). The feature was not drawn-up to produce a shopping-list of complaints about the system. The intention was to dig a little deeper. FIRE asked our contributors to ‘troubleshoot’ IPDS and consider the following:
• What are the problems?
• What are fire and rescue services doing at present?
• What are possible solutions?
• How can these solutions be implemented?
The difficulties are well known. But are there really a suite of measures that could be introduced without shattering the whole framework? Our correspondents think so. Some of the problems have already been identified, above. The next question is: what are fire and rescue services doing at present?
Present State
The central issue to which every discussion on IPDS revolves is the safety critical skills of firefighters. Our correspondent refers to two large fire and rescue services starting ‘back-to-basics’ courses following a number of near miss events that threatened the safety of firefighters (see pg 28). He asks: ‘Is this a tacit recognition of a failure of IPDS training systems to deliver the safe firefighter concept?’ arguing that the reduction in the number of serious fires is reducing skill development on the job.
There are concerns from some experienced firefighters that there has been a ‘dangerous decrease’ in the amount and quality of training in recent years (see pg 30), and the contributor suggests that there is still no process for assessing competency in some fire and rescue services. He challenges: ‘How in 2007 can we have a situation where the trade union allows such a position to exist?’
Solutions
An amalgam of solutions does not necessarily produce one clear answer. There may however be something or some suggestions that could go a long way to assisting further implementation for the benefit of all within the Service. Our contributors propose the following:
• There needs to be an effective audit of training, development and assessment, a professional inspection and audit process of every fire and rescue service’s delivery of IPDS.
• Wide ownership is required. As our correspondent states on pg 31: ‘Joint ownership of the IPDS process is essential if the ‘safer firefighter’ concept and more effective fire and rescue services are to be realised’.
• The IPDS message must get buy-in from everyone, from existing managers seeking promotion to firefighters.
• There needs to be a recognition and incorporation of the underpinning knowledge learned at training centres, supported by exam-based confirmation.
• Exams should be intelligently focused on the essential and desirable skills required by all FRS staff. ‘Without an appropriate examination system, IPDS is an incomplete concept lacking suitability within the contemporary working environment’.
Implementing Solutions
FIRE contributors recommend the following:
• It is essential to create a joint group at the Centre of Excellence where the ownership and future development of IPDS is shared equally by all stakeholders.
• Comprehensive examinations should be implemented at all levels.
• The progression and development of operational managers should take place at the Fire Service College.
• There must be external recognition. Common standards must include written examinations, which may incorporate oral or course work elements. The IFE has already created a registration scheme that facilitates external recognition.
• The Chief Fire and Rescue Advisers Unit need to develop a clear audit mechanism for assessing staff development in partnership with the joint stakeholder group. If you would like to comment or give feedback please do so. As our correspondent says on pg 31: ‘The IPDS team has shown incredible commitment, not often matched by some of their critics, towards ensuring the ‘safer firefighter’ of the future and providing a means by which a fairer and more equal service will prevail.’ Perhaps now is the time for the ‘incredible commitment’ of a few to be broadened and strengthened to include the many that can and will. |
